RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
             AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:                       DOCKET NUMBER:  BC-2001-01707
                                       INDEX CODE:  110.02
      XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX                      COUNSEL:  American Legion

      XXXXXXXXXXXXX                     HEARING DESIRED:  NO

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

His general discharge be upgraded to honorable and his narrative reason  for
discharge be changed from unsuitability to alcoholism failure.

_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Aside from his alcohol-related misconduct, his overall service record  shows
that he served honorably.  His narrative reason for  discharge  is  improper
because his only deficiency was his inability to control his alcoholism.

In support of his application, the applicant provides a copy of his DD  Form
293, Application for the Review of Discharge or  Dismissal  from  the  Armed
Forces of the United  States;  copies  of  his  military  personnel  records
including,  enlistment  documentation,  performance  reports,   Article   15
documentation and his discharge file; requests for records; and an  American
Legion request for  consideration.   The  applicant’s  complete  submission,
with attachments, is at Exhibit A.

_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

On 25 June 1971, the applicant enlisted in the Regular Air Force at the  age
of 17 in the grade of airman basic (E-1) for a period  of  four  years.   He
was trained in the Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC)  54750,  Heating  Systems
Specialist career field.  The applicant was progressively  promoted  to  the
grade of airman first class (E-3) effective 1 July 1972.   He  received  two
performance reports for the period 25 June 1971  through  9  December  1972,
with overall ratings of eight and six.

On 19 January 1972 the applicant  received  an  Article  15  punishment  for
willful destruction of government property.  He received a reduction to  the
grade of airman basic, forfeiture of $75 for  two  months,  and  7  days  of
extra duty.  The applicant appealed the Article 15 punishment on 25  January
1972.  On 14 February 1972, the applicant’s  commander  granted  the  appeal
and reduced the punishment to reduction in grade to airman  basic  suspended
until 1 July 1972 and 7 days of extra duty.

On 25 September 1972, civilian authorities arrested the applicant for  being
drunk and disorderly and for disturbing the peace.   On  28  September  1972
the applicant was convicted and fined $25 for each offense.  On 21  November
1972, the applicant received another Article 15 punishment for  being  drunk
and disorderly on station.  He received  punishment  of  14  days  of  extra
duty.  The applicant served civilian confinement from  8  December  1972  to
5 March 1973 for an armed robbery conviction.

On 30 March 1973, the applicant’s commander notified the applicant  that  he
was recommending him for a general discharge under  AFR  39-12,  Section  B,
chapter 2, paragraph 2-15a, (unsuitability) for frequent  involvement  of  a
discreditable nature with civil and  military  authorities.   The  applicant
acknowledged receipt, waived his rights to submit statements and  to  appear
before an administrative discharge board.  The staff  judge  advocate  found
the file legally sufficient on 6 April 1973.  It  was  noted  in  the  staff
judge advocate review that even though various attempts to rehabilitate  the
applicant were made with some success  from  time  to  time,  the  applicant
apparently could not maintain a  steady  positive  performance  in  the  Air
Force.  On 9 April 1973, the discharge authority  approved  the  recommended
separation and directed that the applicant  be  discharged  with  a  general
(under   honorable   conditions)    discharge    without    probation    and
rehabilitation.  The applicant was discharged effective 12 April  1973  with
a general (under honorable conditions) characterization of service.  He  had
served 1 year, 9 months and 18 days on active duty.  The applicant  lost  87
days due to civilian confinement.

_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

AFPC/DPPRS recommends denial.  DPPRS states the  applicant’s  discharge  was
consistent  with  the  procedural  and  substantive  requirements   of   the
discharge regulation in affect at that time.   Additionally,  the  discharge
was within the discretion of the discharge  authority.   The  applicant  did
not provide any facts warranting a change  in  his  discharge,  nor  did  he
submit any new evidence or identify any errors or injustices  that  occurred
in his discharge processing.  The DPPRS evaluation is at Exhibit C.

_________________________________________________________________



APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

A copy of the Air Force evaluation was forwarded to the applicant on 9 May
2003 for review and response (Exhibit D).  As of this  date,  this  office
has received no response.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  The applicant  did  not  provide
persuasive evidence showing the  information  in  the  discharge  case  was
erroneous, his substantial rights were violated,  or  that  his  commanders
abused their discretionary authority.  The  characterization  of  discharge
which was issued at the  time  of  the  applicant’s  separation  accurately
reflects the circumstances of  his  separation  and  we  do  not  find  the
characterization of discharge to be in error or unjust.   In  view  of  the
foregoing and in the absence of evidence by the applicant  attesting  to  a
successful post-service adjustment in the years since  his  separation,  we
are not inclined to extend clemency in this case.  Therefore,  we  conclude
that no basis exists upon  which  to  recommend  favorable  action  on  his
request that it be changed.

_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:

The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of material error  or  injustice;  that  the  application  was
denied without a personal appearance; and that the application will only  be
reconsidered upon the submission of newly discovered relevant  evidence  not
considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 18 June 2003, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

            Mr. Thomas S. Markiewicz, Vice Chair
            Mr. Wayne R. Gracie, Member
            Mr. Billy C. Baxter, Member

The following documentary evidence for AFBCMR  Docket  Number  BC-2001-01707
was considered:

     Exhibit A.  DD Forms 149, dated 21 Jan 03.
     Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
     Exhibit C.  Letter, AFPC/DPPRS, dated 1 May 03.
     Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MRBR, dated 9 May 03.




                                  THOMAS S. MARKIEWICZ
                                  Vice Chair